Just one thought: The "paid for review" model would work better if the papers had a famous person's name on them, rather than pseudonyms right? That certainly seems to be common with other coins doing what you suggest, I think.
No, I am not questioning the work behind the paper, so a pseudo doesn't matter (haven't read the latest one yet).
My suggestion, and I haven't entirely thought this through, is that maybe in this context an unknown pseudonym is better, because it removes the possibility that the purpose of the paper is to exploit the halo of the author. The content would then have to stand on its own merits.
Anyway, there is plenty of competitiveness around here and I'm sure that won't change, but it is sometimes nice to put that aside and just have a conversation for a little while.